Meta

Quote note (#344)

… Here’s another way to put my concern. The percentage of global GDP which is held in relatively non-free countries, such as China, has been rising relative to the share of global GDP held in the freer countries. I suspect we are underrating the noxious effects of that development.

If freedom has become disconnected from economic competence, then classical liberalism is dead.

(The XS suspicion, however, is that Cowen’s sense of “freedom” has been so corrupted by social democracy that it’s incapable of doing the work he wants it to here.)

40 Responses to this entry

i
Say it is 1970 and you are a potential math or science genius born in India. What is the chance you can bring your talents to fruition? It’s actually fairly problematic, if only because you might die of malaria or diarrhea, or maybe you never come into contact with a teacher who appreciates your abilities and sets you on the right path. These days, your chance is much better.

considering how much the population of India has exploded over the past century, that argument does not bear much water

» The importance of Mars in establishing religious and cultural identity within the Roman Empire is indicated by the vast number of inscriptions identifying him with a local deity, particularly in the Western provinces. »

» The ancient Chinese self-identified as “the descendants of the dragon” because the Chinese dragon is an imagined reptile that represents evolution from the ancestors and qi energy.[9] The presence of dragons within Chinese culture dates back several thousands of years with the discovery of a dragon statue dating back to the fifth millennium BC from the Yangshao culture in Henan in 1987,[10] and jade badges of rank in coiled form have been excavated from the Hongshan culture circa 4700-2900 BC.[11] Some of the earliest Dragon artifacts are the pig dragon carvings from the Hongshan culture. »

» Chinese scholars have classified dragons in diverse systems. For instance, Emperor Huizong of the Song dynasty canonized five colored dragons as “kings”.

The Azure Dragon [Qinglong 青龍] spirits, most compassionate kings.
The Vermilion Dragon [Zhulong 朱龍 or Chilong 赤龍] spirits, kings that bestow blessings on lakes.
The Yellow Dragon [Huanglong 黃龍] spirits, kings that favorably hear all petitions.
The White Dragon [Bailong 白龍] spirits, virtuous and pure kings.
The Black Dragon [Xuanlong 玄龍 or Heilong 黑龍] spirits, kings dwelling in the depths of the mystic waters.[26]
With the addition of the Yellow Dragon of the Center to Azure Dragon of the East, these Vermilion, White, and Black Dragons coordinate with the Four Symbols, including the Vermilion Bird of the South, White Tiger of the West, and Black Tortoise of the North. »

» Chinese literature and myths refer to many dragons besides the famous long. The linguist Michael Carr analyzed over 100 ancient dragon names attested in Chinese classic texts.[25] Many such Chinese names derive from the suffix -long:

» The King of Wuyue in the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period was often known as the “Dragon King” or the “Sea Dragon King” because of his extensive hydro-engineering schemes which “tamed” the sea. »

» According to the beliefs of the Cult of the Dragon, the Machine God may actually be the C’tan shard known as the Void Dragon, an ancient alien entity of immense power. It is imprisoned in a Necron-built Stasis Tomb beneath the Noctis Labyrinth on Mars. The mighty C’tan was imprisoned by the Emperor Himself before He even publicly emerged to found the Imperium of Man on Terra and initiate the Unification Wars. At that time, the Emperor proved unable to kill the C’tan even with His great power, and so He imprisoned it beneath Mars so that the powers of the C’tan, though passive, would cause the Adeptus Mechanicus to emerge, which the Emperor needed as support for his future Great Crusade to reunite Mankind. This so called “Grand Lie of Mars” is buried deep beneath the sands of the Red Planet in an underground complex which is actually the Void Dragon itself. »

[NL] “If freedom has become disconnected from economic competence, then classical liberalism is dead.

(The XS suspicion, however, is that Cowen’s sense of “freedom” has been so corrupted by social democracy that it’s incapable of doing the work he wants it to here.)”

{AK}: If so called Darwinian criteria are being followed, what conception of the social actually grounds the notion of economic competence? It’s no good talking about classical liberalism, social democracy, or even monarchy; all of these ideological conceptions are arrangements of the Social.

If economic competence, is equated with pure productivity, in what sense is such a purity characterised? Quantity? Quality? Without consensual agreement, those factors are difficult to determine and stabilise. Bringing in Darwinian conflict, as the ground of resolution, begs the question, and effectively renders redundant any sociopolitical argument that might be offered.

As you’ve already bitten into the Darwinian apple, in electing to emphasise its relevance as some kind of sociopolitical principle, this commits you to following the casuistical convolutions its logic occasionally leads to. At least, as viable possibility.

Given your propensity to jettisoning evolutionary dross, as if evolution were some kind of wholly objective mechanism, it seems strange that you would engage in political argument at all! Why even attempt to persuade? It begins to sound very much like the hypostatic arguments of some religious nutcase, yelling about some god.

What conception of ‘freedom’ ensues from the necessity of ‘economic competence’ and the abandoning of social obligation? Because that’s the ineluctable logic of a question that your impoverished position cannot avoid. Your position, supports the destruction of all life, in the service of ‘economic necessity’. That’s why I quoted Highlander, four years ago.

Your appealing to various reality fixations is undermined by your Darwinian commitments. I’ve explained this before. You have no defence against it.

I wrote this, on Facebook, earlier:

“The actual issue is that every invasive occidental regime, for the last 4000 years, has been based on the logic of parasitical extraction. Why else invade any other land that presents no threat?
Unfortunately, the USA finds insanity to be an easier route to profitability, than any cogent consideration of actual responsibilities. Politics, as a serious form, has disappeared. Trump demonstrates that very well. He can’t be blamed for that. But the people themselves, can. Over religious issues, the USA is at the level of the very worst third world countries. This is not merely ignorance, but a hyper-ignorance, significant in itself, and great fun for speculative theory. However, it is disturbing, too. Redolent of a deeper crisis, that no one else, apparently, seems to be contemplating, let alone addressing.
Given this malaise of theoretical penetration, the fragmented nature of western thought, and its propensity towards disconnection, emerges as the strongest tendency governing the construction of its political self-image.
The race towards expediency characterising the modernist impetus, has entirely consumed the spirit of the west.”

I’ve said all this before, of course, but none of you seem to actually understand it. Until you do, all your so-called arguments are vulnerable; ‘inferior’, according to your own criteria.

“It begins to sound very much like the hypostatic arguments of some religious nutcase, yelling about some god.”

Right, Darwinism can be seen as a sort of Calvinism redivivus – in form rather than content, at least among its adherents: unreflective dogmatism that has reduced subjectivities to objects; post-apes on their knees quivering before the sublimity of “Survival” and similar crypto-theologisms.

Post-Darwinism can come about *out of itself* if a belief-theory beats it in competition. The question is what do you suggest as an altarnative? French obscurantism?

Even if Darwinism is the truth “truth” itself may be subordinate to the truth that we should return to appearances, which would amount to dissolving the truth/appearance dichotomy, consequently rendering Darwinism “extinct”. Art vs. Science – which is more conducive to enhancing life?

Jim got this idea from Foseti and/or Moldbug. The change would have to be cross-generational: we the living are essentially screwed, nihilists from birth to death–but if we “LARP authentically” enough our children or their children will be able to live in an enchanted world, as Weber described the Medieval epoch. The real answer to your question is we need a postmodern Aquinas to Ubermensch out of the woodwork and “forge” a rational justification for a new religion. I think we can borrow a lot from the Catholic Church but–assuming there isn’t an apocalyptic catastrophe, because if that happens then *anything* is possible–I really don’t see (at least millennials) buying a religion that isn’t at the same time a physiologism, i.e. some kind of ethical/existential lifeworld which is anchored in Scientism. That just seems to be the way the Tao is pointing in my experience with younger people. The problem comes when you have Scientism (Gnon, HBD included) which is amoral and unconcerned with lived human meaning. Of course we’re going to also need lots of $$$$$$$ to pull this off:

“In an oligarchical regime, public opinion is always an effect rather than a cause. It still matters, but only in the sense that some effects cannot be caused. But the power of the machine is always increasing. Few in the Reagan era could have imagined that in the lives of their grown children, most Americans would come to regard gay marriage as an essential civil right. Why did this happen? Because the ruling class is sovereign not just politically, but also intellectually. What it believes, everyone comes to believe – and is horrified that previous generations somehow failed to believe…” (MM)

[Wagner] “Right, Darwinism can be seen as a sort of Calvinism redivivus – in form rather than content, at least among its adherents: unreflective dogmatism that has reduced subjectivities to objects; post-apes on their knees quivering before the sublimity of “Survival” and similar crypto-theologisms.

Post-Darwinism can come about *out of itself* if a belief-theory beats it in competition. The question is what do you suggest as an altarnative? French obscurantism?

Even if Darwinism is the truth “truth” itself may be subordinate to the truth that we should return to appearances, which would amount to dissolving the truth/appearance dichotomy, consequently rendering Darwinism “extinct”. Art vs. Science – which is more conducive to enhancing life?”

{AK}: Yes, that’s very eloquently said, Big W, your first paragraph about Darwinism. Nick land is definitely guilty of that.
My claim has been that ‘Darwinism’ cannot be fixed, according to any one particular image. That ‘Darwinism’, if pursued, exceeds the very images conventionally used as its exemplification. Your Post-Darwinian, belief-theory, if competitively achieved, or simply selected, remains ‘Darwinian’ in logic, but exceeds Darwinism-as-conventionally-imaged-substance, as it were. (Hope that’s ‘Continental’ enough for you, Big W, lol.)

The Nietzsche is great, of course. I would say, that he’s trying to loosen things up, in terms of the ‘heavy’ and ‘absolutising’ context of 19th century German Idealism, and Science, as he perceives or receives it. He’s ‘dancing’, with ideas and evaluations; choreographing various lines of veracity, seeing where they lead. But there is no obligation to rest with just one fixation. There is no crisis, no fixed foundation is necessary. So, yes, I agree, “truth/appearance” should be used creatively. Creativity, need not be ‘immoral’, ‘cruel’, or ‘horrific’. My argument would be that those attributes are simply the harsh reversal of stringent and disciplinary, Occidental coercions, towards the ‘good’. It could well be, that this ‘Heaven and Hell’ logic derives its force from a concentrating containment, under a Platonic spell.

“What happens when the true world is expunged? Does the apparent world still remain? No. For the apparent world can be what it is only as a counterpart of the true. If the true world collapses, so must the world of appearances. Only then is Platonism overcome, which is to say, inverted in such a way that philosophical thinking twists free of it…
The overturning of Platonism and the ultimate twist out of it imply a metamorphosis of man. At the end of Platonism stands a decision concerning the transformation of man. That is how the phrase “highpoint of humanity” is to be understood, as the peak of decision, namely, decision as to whether with the end of Platonism man as he has been hitherto is to come to an end, whether he is to become that kind of man Nietzsche characterized as the “last man,” or whether that type of man can be overcome and the “overman” can begin: “lncipit Zarathustra.”…
“The opposite of the overman is the last man: I created him at the same time I created the former” (XIV, 262)…
What is needed is neither abolition of the sensuous nor abolition of the nonsensuous. On the contrary, what must be cast aside is the misinterpretation, the deprecation, of the sensuous, as well as the extravagant elevation of the supersensuous. A path must be cleared for a new interpretation of the sensuous on the basis of a new hierarchy of the sensuous and nonsensuous. The new hierarchy does not simply wish to reverse matters within the old structural order, now reverencing the sensuous and scorning the nonsensuous. It does not wish to put what was at the very bottom on the very top. A new hierarchy and new valuation mean that the ordering structure must be changed. To that extent, overturning Platonism must become a twisting free of it.”

One of the first handful of comments underneath Land’s Dark Enlightenment essay always struck me:

“And lol and behold that his solution may as well have been Nietzsche’s classic line that “The OVERMAN is the meaning of the earth…”, while at no point in this huge essay mentioning Nietzsche’s name (I Ctrl-F’ed to make sure).”

Influence-anxiety, admin? Submit to your master whose ghost I am!

Goth Eiríksson Reply:March 22nd, 2017 at 10:57 pm

Y’all niggas sure grandiloquent.

» It was especially risky to use scientific jargon in front of quantum physicist Richard Feynman. Nothing made him as angry as intellectual pretense achieved though making simple things sound complex.[18][19] Outstanding talent for clarity, he taught the mastery of technical presentation: Don’t say ‘reflected acoustic wave’, say ‘echo’. Forget all that ‘local minima’. Just say there’s a ‘bubble’ caught in the crystal and you have to shake it. »

Well being very much comes from aesthetics or the aesthetic and being able to follow your sane or socially nonharmful enough proclivities. You do the necessary but the aesthetic is builds around that, is even in conjunction with it, or flowers out of it. What is aesthetic? The victor defines the aesthetic. I think good science is aesthetic. A good dentist is aesthetic. Machine guns are aesthetic, but not fighting in simulators is pretty outdated. Even saving druggies in ER can be aesthetic, if you got the brahmin-blood in ya.* Those who regard well being as outside of that, are riteless n’wah — the below-caste. “Classy” casteless consumers.

» [‘Aesthetic’] was popularized in English by translations of Kant and used originally in the classically correct sense “science which treats of the conditions of sensuous perception” [OED] »

* Let the druggies do community service in turn, to return to society. Maybe they can be de-addictivized through AI program training.

I think this nails it (practically crucifies it): » The ancients who wanted to manifest their bright virtue to all in the world first governed well their own states. Wanting to govern well their states, they first harmonized their own clans. Wanting to harmonize their own clan, they first cultivated themselves. Wanting to cultivate themselves, they first corrected their minds. Wanting to correct their minds, they first made their wills sincere. Wanting to make their wills sincere, they first extended their knowledge. Extension of knowledge consists of the investigation of things. When things are investigated, knowledge is extended. When knowledge is extended, the will becomes sincere. When the will is sincere, the mind is correct. When the mind is correct, the self is cultivated. When the self is cultivated, the clan is harmonized. When the clan is harmonized, the country is well governed. When the country is well governed, there will be peace throughout the land. »

Can’t knock the Conc.

If you harmonize shit around you, you’ll feel better and others will too.

Speaking of megalomania someone posted on Xenosystems a while back this quote from Crowley’s autohagiography that adds some sinews to the bones of “rite” you shared recently with that Evola article on Roman religion:

“Human nature demands (in the case of most people) the satisfaction of the religious instinct, and, to very many, this may best be done by ceremonial means. I wished therefore to construct a ritual through which people might enter into ecstasy as they have always done under the influence of appropriate ritual. In recent years, there has been an increasing failure to attain this object, because the established cults shock their intellectual convictions and outrage their common sense. Thus their minds criticize their enthusiasm; they are unable to consummate the union of their individual souls with the universal soul as a bridegroom would be to consummate his marriage if his love were constantly reminded that its assumptions were intellectually absurd.

I resolved that my Ritual should celebrate the sublimity of the operation of universal forces without introducing disputable metaphysical theories. I would neither make nor imply any statement about nature which would not be endorsed by the most materialistic man of science. On the surface this may sound difficult; but in practice I found it perfectly simple to combine the most rigidly rational conceptions of phenomena with the most exalted and enthusiastic celebration of their sublimity.”

Further: remember when I asked how we *ground* the god behind the rite? I think we have an answer, one you today alluded to here:

“In July 1975 I was visiting my friend Gordon Wasson in his home in Danbury when he suddenly asked me this question: whether Early Man in ancient Greece could have hit on a method to isolate an hallucinogen from ergot that would have given him an experience comparable to LSD or psilocybin…

We have no way to tell what the chemistry was of the ergot of barley or wheat raised on the Rarian plain in the 2nd millennium B.C. But it is certainly not pulling a long bow to assume that the barley grown there was host to an ergot containing, perhaps among others, the soluble hallucinogenic alkaloids. The famous Rarian plain was adjacent to Eleusis. Indeed this may well have led to the choice of Eleusis for Demeter’s temple, and for the growth of the cluster of powerful myths surrounding them and Triptolemus that still exert their spell on us today. The separation of the hallucinogenic agents by simple water solution from the non-soluble ergotamine and ergotoxine alkaloids was well within the range of possibilities open to Early Man in Greece…

The answer is yes, Early Man in ancient Greece could have arrived at an hallucinogen from ergot. He might have done this from ergot growing on wheat or barley. An easier way would have been to use the ergot growing on the common wild grass Paspalum. This is based on the assumption that the herbalists of ancient Greece were as intelligent and resourceful as the herbalists of pre-Conquest Mexico.” – Albert Hofmann, “The Road to Eleusis: Unveiling the Secret of the Mysteries”

The New Religion will involve chrippin’. Catholics drink wine – boring! No wonder their god is dead.

For the transhumanists here, check out the “God helmet”. If we can technize ayahuasca we’ll be on the right path.

Goth Eiríksson Reply:March 23rd, 2017 at 3:28 am

Religion is not necessarily complex. All it requires is doing. Observances.

Focused doing. First must be understood that nothing is not under religion. Things are under aegis.

Under names.

It is not correct that the modern world is not spiritual. Firstly because spiritual is just doing things in the name of something, as is still attested in our language. Saying ‘in the name of science’ is akin to saying ‘in the spirit of science’.

Words just come and go in fashion, according to the spirit of the time (zeitgeist).

We should have no problem with whatever words the others use, because we know humans are dialectical like that and we can understand both the old words and the new.

Already by doing our best to speak truth we are under the aegis of Veritas.

» In Roman mythology, Veritas, meaning truth, was the goddess of truth, a daughter of Saturn and the mother of Virtus. It was believed that she hid in the bottom of a holy well because she was so elusive. Her image is shown as a young virgin dressed in white. »

She is in white and a virgin because truth is rendered as synonymous with purity. Something that is regarded as true is often regarded as pure. The scientific method is a rite. Performing it correctly is a purity.

Bungling it was a corrupted method.

Romans excelled at war because they were relatively scientific about it. It was a discipline. They also practiced an observational method which told them when it was favorable to go to war or not.

» Augury sought the divine will regarding any proposed course of action which might affect Rome’s pax, fortuna and salus (peace, good fortune and wellbeing).[2] Political, military and civil actions were sanctioned by augury, historically performed by priests of the college of augurs and by haruspices on behalf of senior magistrates. The presiding magistrate at an augural rite thus held the “right of augury” (ius augurii).[3] Magistracies (which included senior military and civil ranks) were therefore religious offices in their own right, and magistrates were directly responsible for the pax, fortuna and salus of Rome and everything that was Roman.

The effectiveness of augury could only be judged retrospectively; the divinely ordained condition of peace (pax deorum) was an outcome of successful augury. Those whose actions had led to divine wrath (ira deorum) could not have possessed a true right of augury (ius augurum).[4] Of all the protagonists in the Civil War, only Octavian could have possessed it, because he alone had restored the pax deorum to the Roman people. Lucan, writing during the Principate, described the recent Civil War as “unnatural” – a mirror to supernatural disturbances in the greater cosmos. »

» Roman augurs were part of a college (Latin collegium) of priests who shared the duties and responsibilities of the position. At the foundation of the Republic in 510 BC, the patricians held sole claim to this office »

» The science of interpretation of signs was vast and complex.

Only some species of birds (aves augurales) could yield valid signs[26] whose meaning would vary according to the species. Among them were ravens, woodpeckers, owls, ossifragae, eagles.

Signs from birds were divided into alites, from the flight, and oscines, from the voice. The alites included region of the sky, height and type of flight, behaviour of the bird and place where it would rest.

The oscines included the pitch and direction of the sound.[27]

Since the observation was complex conflict among signs was not uncommon.[28]

A hierarchy among signs was devised: e.g. a sign from the eagle would prevail on that from the woodpecker and the ossifragae (parra) »

This sounds absurd now, but come to think of it as Freud’s interpretations of dreams, and think of the dream as the world of the Romans. Does that make any sense to you? Consider that this is a reading of synchronicity. Freud could minimise (‘cure’) a person’s neuroticism through interpreting signs in her dreams?

The Romans could see when it was favorable to attack other civilizations or tribes through interpreting signs in their sphere.

Consider that Bernays used Freud’s ideas to make people spend their money on certain products (he established ‘public relations’).

He fiddled with the signifiers in the consumersphere to make corporations into empires. Now this is called ‘advertising’ or mass marketing. What magic does the Cathedral work? It’s a science, it’s an art, it’s a spirit. People die for Black Friday. They die for Leninismus. They die for Black Metal.

Traditional civilizations knew how to read events in their world to their favor. Modern empires still do this, now it is called intelligence. And academia, which Foucault noted is part of the Control System.

It wouldn’t be wrong, altho it is provisionally reductionistic, to say that the Roman psychocosmic art is somewhat analogous with a psyop. An internal psyop reading of external events?

Why is the Roman college of reading synchronicities so detailed? (We’re hardly used to that nowadays, as our Freudo-Jungian synchronicity-reading school is so young.) The reason is because it’s such an old practice. It is so developed. You’ll see the more psychoanalysis developed the more ways to interpret events it congrued. Let’s say it hadn’t stagnated but become a multi-century phenomenon of success (which it will be), would that not bring it closer to a sacred college? The CIA does employ psychologists? What about its psyop branches? This is Xenoystems.net so I’m going to put a phrase here: Black psyops. Y’all know it as Deep State Theater Operations.

I recommend the OSS psychoanalysis on Hitler.

Why didn’t the Romans simply read dreams instead of the movement of birds? Perhaps because dreams are more subjective. There’s hardly anything more objective than seeing things in the clear blue sky. (So to speak.)

How on earth can the movement of birds be related to anything? Non-mundane man knows that the world is a relational whole. As I said, under aegis.

Who knows, maybe when a certain species is moving in X-Y way at Z-Y time, the people in that place are in an expansive phase and thus they are cutting down forests and thus the birds need to move to another forest and fly over the Romans.

Of course, it’s not as crude as that. But this is a crude analogy for crude understanding.

Modern Science is discovering all sorts of weird links though. Global effects. Cosmic effects. People who live near forests have 16% less propensity for lung cancer was on the radio some hours ago. When the sun does X it has a Y effect on earth. Etc.

These are synchronicities. The word simply means ‘happens at the same time’, i.e. it is syn-chronous. ‘Conjoined in time.’ I.e. eventual. An event.

Say you study the psychosocial effects of a solar eclipse. People tend to look to the sky. Productivity decreases for the day compared to the average.

What is you knew the correlation strength of a type of birds movement with a type of ecological events? What does Soros know? Does he e.g. know that people spend more on gasoline in America when there’s a riot in some city? Does he (roughly said) bet on such things. Does he by controlling events control bets? I.e. you store up on grain and then burn the fields to have everyone buy your grain.

He who controls the Opium, I mean Spice, controlls [sic] the universe.

» «Simulacra and Simulation» is most known for its discussion of symbols, signs, and how they relate to contemporaneity (simultaneous existences). »

» a great Empire created a map that was so detailed it was as large as the Empire itself. The actual map was expanded and destroyed as the Empire itself conquered or lost territory. When the Empire crumbled, all that was left was the map. »

But the Empire never ended? The map was obscured.

When peoples witness something like 9/11 — is it read as fortitious for going to war? We came, we saw, we conquered.

Pseudo-chrysostom Reply:March 27th, 2017 at 7:00 am

Admn posts because humans crave attention and the idea of other people coming to share your ideas is deeply satisfying to the ego.

Also because he doesnt have any other hobbies and this is one of the few outlets he knows to keep himself stimulated.

On a completely unrelated note; have you ever noticed how, say, fashion trends within those cliqueish circles known as ‘haute couture’ seem wildly divergent from trends in broader populations, even amongst celebrity sets?

Its almost as if, being immersed in nothing else *but* fashion, they find themselves numbed by it, *bored* even. How artfully, virtuously, elegantly designed the clothing is, such things become a secondary concern; theyve ‘seen it all before’ after all.

They come to desire and value things that to the uninnitiated may seem weird and repellent, simply because *it is different*. It is not arete, but *novelty* that comes to be valued.

(Another proximal example of the phenomena would be Pierro Scaruffi’s list of the best 20th century rock albums).

That, and the pressure to continuously publish – i mean produce, results in a cavalcade of riotously construed slap-dashes who’s chief feature is that they are superficially different from that which came before. A signal almost completely innundated by noise.

They are willing to accept almost anything to sate their interest, just as long as they keep *talking* – i mean designing.

I’ve wondered about Scaruffi’s list and the ‘ethic’ in his valuations. It is not an ethic of conservation. One can tell he is not a conservative from his list.

I remember reading about Larry Page being interested in learning percussion since timing is crucial in computer processing. Do you think he’s playing Metallica covers or reading Xenakis’ percussion scores?

On what I take to be your judgement of Scaruffi, I think you are wrong. I think the diversity of musical forms present in his list is a greater tribute to rock than anything a straightforward purist would offer up.

Also, nothing is deeply satisfying to the ego. I speak from personal experience.

A mere diversity for the sake of diversity is precisely the point im driving at.

Im not going to throw Scaruffi completely under the bus since there *are* a lot of good LPs on his list; or more pertinently, someone *reading though* his list will likely encounter some good albums they might not encounter otherwise simply through regular cultural osmosis (his preoccupation with Captain Beefheart is still weird; but we all have our eccentricies).

Let’s have an illustration; for example, i think ‘Comfortably Numb’ by Pink Floyd is a pretty good song. I think the first movement of piano sonata number 14 by L. Beethoven is also a pretty good song. But piano sonata no. 14 is not rock and roll. Neither is ‘Compass’ by Disasterpeace. Or, for that matter, Anamanaguchi’s ‘Blackout City’.

You see where im going with this?

There comes a point where, if you want something good, thats also so distincted from the ‘rock as usual’ that you’ve heard all before, well, *it has to stop being rock then*.

The surface reading of what i was criticizing in the previous post is perhaps hard to express, but basically, it is the perversion or distorion of a given *form* to ends *it is not suitable for*.

What i rather prefer see is the *elevation* of a form; to see the heights *uniquely achieveable* and expressed *by* that form.

*That* is a *higher order* diversity, something i might not feel queasy about to actually use that so misused term; not the nominalistic kludge of elements into a grey soup that is so typical of that proggist shibboleth in so many spheres of existence.

‘A tribute to rock through a diversity of musical forms’ is not really something im interested in, as such. Good music is, above all, what im interested in. What i want, simply, is the same thing i want from all art; *kindling for the fire of imagination*. Id est, a *good aesthetic experience*.

And you know, its a lot easier to make something original, than it is to make something good.

or it could be non free countries had such crappy economies that labor was cheaper than dirt, and so called capitalists felt they owed nothing to the nations that created and sustained them, (or at least could get a good contract buy out from politicians) and outsourced production, but the left started crying about child labor and pollution, so they decided to team up with commies for political cover and re branded it emerging globalism. The commies liked this because it was extractive of the white nations while redistributive to the third world and opened the door to extending the idea into the great replacement, only in this iteration it was the so called capitalists that did the propagandizing about open and freely moving labor markets.Although you have to pay the niggers a bit more when they move here you save it on shipping and the welfare state actually pays the bulk of the living expenses, after all the politicians had to contribute something for the votes they get this way.
Of course this destroys the old labor force, and no one has enough money to buy the products, but the stocks prices can be inflated by monetizing the welfare debt with fiat QE. No one worried about sustainability because we are way beyond that now

This conclusion requires the assumption that Chinese GDP is estimated accurately, rather than being the product of bureaucratic ‘Goal Seek’ exercises at both the Ministry of Truth … er, Statistics, and the money-printing department of the central bank.

That’s an heroic assumption. I see ‘Goodhart’s Law’ at work here. Beware of confirmation bias.

It also assumes the Cathedral is telling the truth just came across this “understatement” from wiki

“In the early 1930s over 91% of agricultural land became “collectivized” as rural households entered collective farms with their land, livestock, and other assets. The sweeping collectivization often involved tremendous human and social costs.”

» There seems to me to be no sense in reducing complex but intelligible social relationships to purely contingent and circumstantial biological facts that are mere facts, facts that precede acts which initiate a true sociality. I remember a conjoint session with a mother and her daughter. At one point the mother, with deep sadness and not a little courage, said that she had begun to feel a tremendous and decisive sense of loss and envy on realizing that the therapist was now her daughter’s mother far more than she was. The boundary between ‘transference’ relationship and ‘real’ relationship can never, and I believe never should be, all that clear. It’s a matter of living a necessary ambiguity with a requisite sense of difference between the projected (altering) image and the unaltered perception of the other. »

there is a lot of ideas about freedom in anarcho literature. rawly it can be described as freedom which you already have and those which you can get. in leftists determenistic world freedom is necesssery illusion to justify existence of free will. from mPoV as we already in non determenistic universe add hock concept of freedom is not neccessery illusion.

average IQ off population would be more directly correlated with GDP then such abstract concept as freedom. there is countries, you can enter free (no visa), exit free and they will rip you off and abuse in any possible way in transit. a lot of freedom, but no guarantee at al.

As for your questions about Leftists. It amounts to the question of why peoples were, and in some tribes are, matriarchal and communistic ; because what you are seeing through leftism is simply older evolutionary modes trying to assert themselves against private property and paternal right.

» But what of those who are virtuous, and love the Other, not hating? Then, they have no need to fear the Past, the Present, the Future, their brother, or the Other. Their “racism” would be normal and healthy, a familial expression that left room, always, for spiritual advancement and brotherhood, but only as an Eternal Return. »

Well said. Well formulated.

It is simply that types of spirits have more access through those biological types that have formed and we call leftists. These are natural effects, corresponding to entropy and negentropy (ordering). There are two opposing tendencies in the universe, that of evolution and devolution (dissolution into more simpler forms). Mountains form, and mountains decay.

» The word entropy finds its roots in the Greek entropia, which means “a turning toward” or “transformation.” The word was used to describe the measurement of disorder by the German physicist Rudolph Clausius and appeared in English in 1868. A common example of entropy is that of ice melting in water. The resulting change from formed to free, from ordered to disordered increases the entropy. »

The leftist push for dissolution is no more ‘conscious’ than a hysteric’s agitation or the mating call of an animal — it is a subconscious natural process, such as the drying up of old rivers and the breaking-out of new ones. Such as the processes of your digestive system. Etc.

There is a measure of disordering in all processes, hence all processes change. Some ancient man hit his head and wasn’t able to parent as well as others, so his children developed with a distorted image of the father in their psyches, and it got passed on to their children—there you have leftism. It’s simply a somatopsychic maldevelopment correctable with science. The hitting head could be also being traumatised from a wild animal or eating a poisonous berry. All things effect transgenerationally.

A common strawman of the right is to pass over in silence or psychoanalyze into oblivion those leftists who do nothing but love with all their hearts. They’re usually Christians who can’t boast of being very bright but it’s a lie to attribute malevolence to them or disingenuousness (“virtue signaling”). Just give it a rest robo-rightists, the left is maternal in its virtuous form. It’s just most commonly wacked, hysteric, vaguely Medea-esque. The problem is the ressentimental ones like Artxell who literally thirst for white blood and who want us dead. Some don’t send aid to Africa to brag about it, they send it because they care! Just admit it! And caring is good, and being “cold” makes you an asshole! Admit it!

I certainly recognise this. In discourse terms tend to be defined provisionally. Or it is laziness in me. Definitions certainly are conditional.

I think perhaps more clearly we can speak of patriots vs communists.

Communists here defined as those who want others to share misery — because they cannot have healthy families, or are not able to see a healthy family image in their lives, they wish to communise that misery, unconsciously masking this desire as politics.

Land seems patriotic, altho his desire to replace the community with AI (if I in fact did get that right) is an incongruency for study. I wish to enhance community with AI, i.e. society, civil society, science, with AI, so Land’s agitation for technological progress and grasping is fine by me.

I don’t think a “robot rebellion”* (*to quote Land himself) can even logically happen, so I don’t see a worry of it as fit for any primary position in my category of worries.

Capital as self-evolving value-structure and construction isn’t merely alien to me, it is also natural. I see Capital as a construction of the Throne of Heaven on earth.

Capital appropriates us and we appropriate through it — we are in symbiosis with it and it is probiotic. It is us in positive extension. Our action manifests its invisible hand — its invisible hand manifests our destiny. It is the invisible empire of god making itself visible through our constructions so far as they are probiotic — i.e. life-enhancing.

So there’s a fair amount of research out there that western capitalists financed the soviet union Hitler and of course the Cathedral, even during years we were at war capitalists conspired with communists nazis and leftist to supply the other side with war supplies and that western governments knew this and even participated. Today we are well aware leftists capitalists and western governments ares conspiring to bring about the destruction of western peoples and some sort of quasi racial marxist corporatist world order.So it seems sort of beside the point to characterise communists as the beneficiaries of these conspiracies.Yeah Im sure some hapless dopes likes them some socialism they are told they can have but they didnt orchestrate it and if another group tells them they can no longer have food stamps but must instead pick up this shovel if they want to eat they will eventually pick up the shovel.

G. Eiríksson Reply:March 27th, 2017 at 5:14 pm

(At a Robber Baron meeting in NYC) “Let’s turn the Russian Empire into a factory.”
– “How do we do that?”
“Just get some Jewish author to cobble up a manifesto that’s sellable to the masses.”

[Wagner] “A common strawman of the right is to pass over in silence or psychoanalyze into oblivion those leftists who do nothing but love with all their hearts. They’re usually Christians who can’t boast of being very bright but it’s a lie to attribute malevolence to them or disingenuousness (“virtue signaling”). Just give it a rest robo-rightists, the left is maternal in its virtuous form. It’s just most commonly wacked, hysteric, vaguely Medea-esque. The problem is the ressentimental ones like Artxell who literally thirst for white blood and who want us dead. Some don’t send aid to Africa to brag about it, they send it because they care! Just admit it! And caring is good, and being “cold” makes you an asshole! Admit it!”

{AK}: When did I ever express such sentiments as those your attributing to me, Big W?!
Never! I never have expressed those sentiments!
You mistake tactically deployed critique for hostility, Big W.
Much as I’d like to join in the debate, I can’t right now.
If both you and G. Eriksson are able to sustain this level of quality comments (except for the baiting critique of me, of course), Neoreaction might actually begin to get somewhere.
Very tired, need to sleep. Be well, the both of you.

In the long-term China is toast (at least in economical sense). Even more so than the West. Then again, as Keynes would say, “in the long run we are all dead,” and China is nothing if not the biggest Keynesian experiment ever.

You have probably noticed that the one man Nick Land has two blogs and two twitter accounts, UF and XS. NL has never clarified what the meaning of this bipartition of his soul is. Once, I trolled him, accusing him of schizophrenia, no response, perhaps because it’s to some degree accurate–schizophrenia in the pejorative sense, that is. My armpits are sweating at the moment and that usually means I’m on to something substantial. Now, I would like NL to mayk a poast about the connection between accelerationism and neoreaction but the problem with that is, it’s inevitably going to be priestcraft which dam/ns rather than hyper-exposes my point. What NL doesn’t fathom, and “can’t” because he’s a monkey too, is that he isn’t at the Operating Board of Acceleration: his dumb ass is GETTING ACCELERATED too lol ahahahhahahahahahahahahha